Could the blood & water that issued forth from Jesus be reference to caesarian or Caesarius?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Could the blood & water that issued forth from Jesus be reference to caesarian or Caesarius?

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:56 pm

.
The etymology of Caesarian section; modified from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean ... #Etymology -
The Roman Lex Regia (royal law), later the Lex Caesarea (imperial law), of Numa Pompilius (715–673 BC),[111] required the child of a mother dead in childbirth to be cut from her womb.[112] There was a cultural taboo that mothers not be buried pregnant,[113] that may have reflected a way of saving some fetuses [I presume that means potentially viable fetuses, immediately after a pregnant woman's death].

Roman practice required a living mother to be in her tenth month of pregnancy before resorting to the 'Caesarean section' procedure, reflecting the knowledge that she could not survive the delivery:[114] no classical source records a mother surviving such a delivery.[112][116]

The term is said to derive from the verb caedere, "to cut", with children delivered this way referred to as caesones.

Speculation that the Roman dictator Julius Caesar was born by the method now known as C-section is apparently false[115] [his mother Aurelia is reputed to have lived to hear of her son's invasion of Britain]. Pliny the Elder refers to a certain Julius Caesar (an ancestor of the famous Roman statesman) as ab utero caeso, "cut from the womb" giving this as an explanation for the cognomen "Caesar" which was then carried by his descendants.[112] Nonetheless, even if the etymological hypothesis linking the caesarean section to [either] Julius Caesar is a false etymology, it has been widely believed.
.

Interestingly -
The 'Passio' (story of martyrdom) of St. Caesarius is set in Terracina (a harbor town near Rome and Naples) under the pagan emperor Trajan (r. 98-117).

Caesarius, a deacon from Carthage (belonging to the ancient and illustrious gens Julia), after a shipwreck, arrived in Terracina to preach the Gospel to poor people. In this Roman city, each year on the first day of January, a ceremony of self-immolation took place to assure the health and salvation of the Empire. A young man was pampered with material delights and fulfilled in all his wishes for eight months; then he was obliged to mount on a richly harnessed horse, climb up to the summit of city's cliff and throw himself into the void, with the recalcitrant horse, to crash against the rocks and perish in the waves in honour of the god Apollo, as an expiatory offering for the prosperity of the state and the emperors.

The deacon Caesarius denounced this pagan custom and protested: "Alas for a state and emperors who persuade by tortures and are fattened on the outpouring of blood".[1]

The priest of Apollo, named Firminus, had him arrested and taken before Leontius, Roman consul of Campania. During the interrogation, he refused to sacrifice to the pagan god of the sun and light, and his prayers caused the temple of Apollo to collapse (located in the Forum), killing the pagan Firminus. Caesarius was then locked up in jail and, after twenty-two months, he was taken to the Forum to be judged: he asked permission to pray: a radiant light blazed down on him, and the pagan consul Leontius was thereupon converted and sought baptism; he died shortly after (October 30th).[2]

The 1st of November of the year 107 A.D., Luxurius, governor of the city, tied Caesarius and Julian (a local presbyter) up together in a sack, and flung them into the sea, from a cliff called "Pisco Montano".[3]

[Thus] the deacon Caesarius was martyred, although not before prophesying the death of Luxurius, bitten by a poisonous viper.[4]

Caesarius and Julian, on that same day, were thrown back onto the shore, and were buried by Eusebius, a servant of God, near the town of Terracina.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarius_of_Africa#Life
then -

Caesarius as an Imperial Saint

In the 4th century, after his daughter was healed at Caesarius's shrine,[6] the Emperor Valentinian I [Flavius Valentinianus Augustus, r. 364 to 375] decided to move his relics from Terracina to Romeas as a mark of royal favour. They were first taken to a church on the Palatine Hill, then later moved to a new church near the Appian Way, which got the name 'San Cesareo in Palatio'.

Caesarius of Terracina is the saint chosen to replace and Christianize the pagan figure of Julius Caesar ...

The imperial chapel was named after him by Valentinian III [estern Roman Emperor from 425 to 455], increasing his prominence ... Caesarius was the obvious patron for the chapel of the Caesars.[8] ... His legend fitted impeccably into the symbolism of the Palatine, offering a forceful Christian commentary on the meaning of the empire.

In Caesarius the Byzantine administration found a saint capable of Christianizing Rome's imperial core. Caesarius's passio, a Latin text, revolves around the good health or prosperity (salus) of the Roman Empire. The legend presents Caesarius's martyrdom as proof that the well-being of the state rests more solidly on Christian foundations than on its pagan past. His passio presents an elaborate and gruesome panorama of the pagan ritual that, so its audience is led to believe, once underpinned the imperial administration.

In contrast to this senseless and impious bloodshed, Caesarius's martyrdom truly works for the imperial 'salus' by bearing witness to God's truth; commemoration of him offers a means to perpetuate that prosperity.[9]

Saint Caesarius is invoked against the floods of the rivers, the drownings (in memory of his martyrdom) ...

modified from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarius ... rial_Saint

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Could the blood & water that issued forth from Jesus be reference to caesarian or Caesarius?

Post by Joseph D. L. » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:45 am

Jolly good proposal.

The theme of Caesarian section seems applicable for a man, who cannot give birth due his lacking of female origins, like the birth canal. So Jesus have his side pierced would be ushering in a new birth through this C-section.

This also reminds me of what Paul says about himself in 1 Cor, 15:8...

Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί.

And also in Galatians 1:15, where he says "... when he who had set me apart before I was born"; and in chapter four, verses eighteen through nineteen:

is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!

What's more, Paul's complaint of his "thorn in his flesh", and his "bodily ailment" being his reason for preaching the Gospel, I have argued elsewhere, is referring to his circumcision, which he received as an adult, and which had been botched. So the account of Jesus having his side pierced could be an allegory of both circumcision and a Caesarian section, both being sexual in meaning; and Paul calling himself ἐκτρώματι, abortion, untimely born, could be Paul being born from the side of Jesus.

Caesarius sounds like a Pauline character. That whole account reminds me of Acts of the Apostles--particularly, Saul's conversion, and his trial before Sergius Paulus. The theme of being shipwrecked, the nautical imagery, resounds in my mind as being similar to those of Paul and Acts.

I will definitely look more into this. Thank you for this.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Could the blood & water that issued forth from Jesus be reference to caesarian or Caesarius?

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:13 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:45 am
Jolly good proposal .....

.... I will definitely look more into this. Thank you for this.
Cheers. This came to mind b/c of the thread you started but I did not want to sideline or hijack the discussion there, so held this aside for a few days and decided to make it another thread.

I think there could still well be some overlap with what was presented & discussed on your thread, and beyond "how human anatomy and biology was understood back then" -- ie. there is, of course, likely to be a theological component, tied to a perceived [re]creation or fertility component or both.

Joseph D. L. wrote: The theme of Caesarian section seems applicable for a man, who cannot give birth due his lacking of female origins, like the birth canal. So Jesus have his side pierced would be ushering in a new birth through this C-section.

This also reminds me of what Paul says about himself in 1 Cor, 15:8...
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί.

And also in Galatians 1:15, where he says "... when he who had set me apart before I was born"; and in chapter four, verses eighteen through nineteen:
is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!

Yes, Paul occasionally seems to be seeking to portray himself as born in a special way, as you also allude to further on -
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:45 am
...the account of Jesus having his side pierced could be an allegory of both circumcision and a Caesarian section, both being sexual in meaning; and Paul calling himself ἐκτρώματι, abortion, untimely born, could be Paul being born from the side of Jesus.
There is also a number of concepts such as baptism, and the Osiris-related fertility concepts (I saw something recently referring to a concept of the Indian god [Shiva?] having water gushing forth from its body for fertility purposes, so these concepts may have been around widely for millennia before Christianity developed).

From your thread -
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:58 am

... What I'm driving at is a continuation and extension of my theory that the blood and water that pours from Jesus is a baptismal ritual for the new covenant promoted by Paul, and the possibility that this baptism was itself a sexual baptism of sorts.

What gives this theory more, though marginal, credit for me, is how a similar concept was played out in Egypt. Upon death, the Nile issued from Osiris, expelling with it his blood and semen, thus creating the conditions of renewal that the Egyptians coveted so highly. The flood of Genesis also has this, with the waters of the earth and heavens, mixed with the blood of the wicked, creating a renewed world of righteousness.

But back to Jesus in regards to this, the author of 1 John links the blood and water of Jesus to baptism:

This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood.

The statement, "not by the water only", is referring to the baptism by John, a scene that is not present in The Gospel of John, oddly enough.

So the blood and water was connected to a baptism ritual, the only thing that remains is if this was a sexual baptism (meaning, that those who participated would be anointed with semen).
and
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:14 pm

.. The Pyramid Texts and Coffin Spells has the Nile being produced from Osiris's corpse. It's not just his blood and semen, but all bodily fluids and infections, like bile and pus.
.
and then from my post about the points that Terje Oestigaard made about Osiris -
... Osiris and Horus were, by their very nature, the royal deceased father and his living royal son’, and consequently, as Anthes argues, ‘it was the king’s transition from Horus into Osiris which confirmed his existence as an eternal being’(Anthes 1959: 175, 180).

Conclusion
.. Horus the Son... made his father Osiris eternal and rejuvenated him through the life-giving waters in the Eye. Therefore, the actual funeral ceremonies had a double function. The deceased Horus became eternal as Osiris and Horus the Son became the new Pharaoh by killing Seth and transforming his father into the Nile and the annual,life-giving waters. Horus the Son as the Pharaoh was the living God who mastered and controlled all life through the waters and the successful inundation.

The annual inundation was the actual efflux of Osiris – his deceased father. As the river turned red-brownish during the summer, this was the blood of the rejuvenated Pharaoh, who was transformed into Osiris and the annual flood, which gave life and prosperity to all of Egypt. It was the deceased’s son, the new Pharaoh as Horus the King, who was responsible for this transformation, and the new king was not coronated before his father was successfully transformed into the life-giving flood when his efflux covered the whole of Egypt. The discharge of Osiris thus gave life to the dead king and to his people, rejuvenating Egypt and her inhabitants, and the source of all life had its origin in the Nile itself and the physical characteristics of the river which changed throughout the year


Terje Oestigaard (2010) Osiris and the Egyptian Civilisation ofInundation: The Pyramids, the Pharaohs andtheir Water World

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 273#p88273

This is an interesting point, too -
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:45 am

Caesarius sounds like a Pauline character. That whole account reminds me of Acts of the Apostles--particularly, Saul's conversion, and his trial before Sergius Paulus. The theme of being shipwrecked, the nautical imagery, resounds in my mind as being similar to those of Paul and Acts.
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Could the blood & water that issued forth from Jesus be reference to caesarian or Caesarius?

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:23 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:07 pm

My inference of Osiris was to draw out similar ideas and motifs among the ancient traditions. The death of God, or a god, creating the elements of nature (particularly water, semen and blood) was a common trope, as these elements are primal ingredients for life. So it would only be logical to have the world formed--or reformed--out of these elements [or these elements referred to in relating the reformation of a god, particularly in relation to a death of that god].

The water symbolism is more complex. On one hand it certainly references the water of baptism, but in John water is a deeper metaphor for transformation that leads to submission to God's will.
Isn't this similar to Paul's espousal of baptism? Also curious is the similarities between Moses striking a rock to produce water, with Jesus being pierced to produce blood and water.

I don't have the time to fully develop that idea here, but it begins in John 2:1-9 where water is transformed into wine (thus beginning the transformation metaphor), and reaches it denouement in John 13:4-5 where Jesus pours water into a basin and then washes his disciples feet as an act of humility and submission.
I wanted to include the water into wine miracle, but didn't know how to properly connect it. Of course the wine is synonymous with blood (likewise with Dionysus and Osiris), and this confers with the Eucharist.
.
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Could the blood & water that issued forth from Jesus be reference to caesarian or Caesarius?

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:31 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:49 pm
.
.
.
Dennis R. MacDonald, The Dionysian Gospel, pages 159-160:

... "water" and then "blood," presumably as metaphors for baptism and the Eucharist ... "blood and water" [in the gospel] no longer pertain to rituals but to the physicality of Jesus's death ...

"[T]he best explanation of 19:34 is that it is later than 1 John 5:6-7, since the author of 1 John could not be referring to the text of 19:34 as the explanation of 'comes in water.' Rather, 19:34 is ... as an affirmation within the narrative of the Gospel of what was expressed theologically in 1 John" [Von Wahlde, A Commentary on the Gospel and Letters of John (3 vols.; ECC Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1:380].

Therefore, the water and the blood were originally intended to indicate the principal Christian rites: baptism and blood, respectively, but the author(s) of the gospel used the epistles, sometimes confusingly, and, in this case, both the water and the blood come out as symbols of Jesus' death, thus covering the eucharistic angle but [also] reflecting the baptismal... only at some cost in terms of coherence; this can definitely happen when ideas are forced into a theological construct.

1 John 5.6-8: 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

John 19.34-35: 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.


Joseph D. L.
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Could the blood & water that issued forth from Jesus be reference to caesarian or Caesarius?

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:10 am

I appreciate you considering my opinions and seeing what else may be there.
Yes, Paul occasionally seems to be seeking to portray himself as born in a special way, as you also allude to further on...
I don't want to give too much away, as this is a crucial subject that will be discussed at length in my book on Peregrinus.

But suffice it to say, Paul's revelation was his rebirth. He infers this in several ways: by the teaching of baptism; by the example of Hagar and Sarah; and by being crucified and resurrected with Jesus.

This rebirth of Paul, I presume, was the origins of the virgin birth of Jesus. The Community that originally promoted Paul did not take to this idea very well, because Paul may have been a teacher and Law giver and a god (Lucian says as much), this claim was too much, and they had already tired of his company. But to prevent others from making similar boasts, they appended this detail onto Jesus. This caused a rupture within the Community, with some accepting it (Nazarenes. This also may be why Paul is called their leader in Acts) and others denying it (Ebionites).

Why was a virgin (re)birth so abhorrent to the Ebionites? Who knows? It could be because the idea was associated with paganism, especially the Egyptian religion. Or maybe they wanted nothing to do with Paul? Either way, they were exterminated in the ensuing bar Kochba conflict, and the Nazarenes remained.

But this is one reason why I believe proto-John was the true Marcionite text: because chapter three is almost a promotional piece for Paul. It's always struck me as a misstep--if Luke or Gospel of the Lord were the Gospels the Marcionites used, then Paul is an anomaly. But Gospel of John justifies Paul in announcing the coming of the Paraclete, and how he will be recognized: by being born/reborn, above. And how does Paul describe his revelation?

I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses— though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.

This satisfies the requirement in John 3 of being born again and above, and of ascending and descending. (Galatians and Apocalypse of Paul is also similar.)

Later.

Post Reply